Epistemic Terrains and Epistemic Potential
A Review of How Should I Know? Preservice Teachers=E2=80=99 Images of Knowi=
ng (by heart) in Mathematics and Science

Since the dawning of the interpretive turn=
in mathematics and science education, many have developed a new sensitivit=
y to experience
within the practices of our disciplines. Many researchers and=20
scholars, seeking a space beyond the traditions to ground their=20
inquiries, have become to tackle =E2=80=9Cthe fundamental questions of how=
and=20
where knowledge is produced and by whom, and of what counts as=20
knowledge=E2=80=9D (Weedon, 1987, p. 7). Kathleen Nolan, similarly,=
in her
book How Should I Know? Preservice Teachers=E2=80=99 Images of Knowing=
(by heart) in Mathematics and Science,
opens up another epistemic terrain for discussion on knowers and the=20
known. From the practical trenches of an educator=E2=80=99s work with=
=20
preservice teachers, she calls into question many of our familiar=20
categories of meaning and explanation in order to explore a=20
nonfoundational epistemology in science and mathematics.

What distinguishes How Should I Know?=20
from other recent efforts to engage with preservice teachers=E2=80=99 knowi=
ng in
mathematics and science is the way in which Nolan situates it squarely=20
within the contemporary epistemological context. In doing so, the=20
book draws on new forms of social to offer a grounding, as well as=20
empirical evidence for a view of knowledge as a production, created and=20
experienced by cognitive agents within social practices. How Shou=
ld I Know?
provides important insights relating to how and why an individual=20
preservice teacher participates differently between subject disciplines=20
and how that differential participation influences knowledge production.
The result is a more expansive conception of knowing, and with it, a=20
more fruitful view of subjectivity.

Conceptualizing knowledge production more=20
expansively is important if we are to enhance pedagogical effectiveness=20
in our schools. The harsh reality is that, by the time they arrive at=20
teacher education courses, many preservice teachers are already=20
disaffected with science and mathematics and have not learnt to interact
successfully with the content of the formal curricula. Their=20
visions of teaching are often narrowly confined to transmission=20
approaches that tend to locate authority directly with the text and with
the teacher. How Should I Know? is a creative initiative th=
at brings these issues to the fore.

The mode of representation is through the=20
construction of the text as a parody on physical science textbooks on=20
the topic of light. More particularly, each chapter is produced=20
through an experimental form of writing that works both within and=20
beyond dominant textual forms. Each chapter uses a number of=20
textual strategies such as differences in font size, inclusion of=20
quotations from colleagues, scholars, reflections from the eight=20
participants and the author on their individual experiences, along with=20
poetry, prose, comedy, journal entries and excerpts pertaining to the=20
scientific explanation of light. The intent is that, in using a=20
"kaleidoscopic text", the presentation will highlight =E2=80=9Cth=
e unfolding=20
stories of struggles, questions, and rewards, presented as the word not=20
the after-word=E2=80=9D (p. 36). What the multilayered approach is ab=
le to
do is capture the dynamic between structure and agency by showing us=20
how science and mathematics are, for these elementary preservice=20
teachers, places that allocate them with minimal epistemic=20
authority. This finding is profoundly troubling; yet the detail of
the analysis is worth taking seriously.

Exploring How People Come to Know

In the investigation, Nolan is focused on what it=20
is that structures a concrete experience in mathematics and in science,=20
whilst taking care to avoid the foregrounding of =E2=80=9Cconcrete experien=
ce as
the final arbiter=E2=80=9D (Lather, 2006, p. 44). The research, base=
d on a
narrative inquiry that is =E2=80=9Ccontinually unfolding=E2=80=9D (Clandin=
in &=20
Connelly, 2000, p. 166), has a number of important theoretical=20
guideposts. For example, highly influential have been critical=20
theory, feminist theory, Bernstein=E2=80=99s sociology of knowledge;=20
sociocultural theory, and to some lesser extent, psychoanalytic=20
theory. This theoretical underpinning allows Nolan to canvass a=20
number of issues such as the politics of knowledge, the construction of=20
subjectivity and agency, the nature and function of participants=E2=80=99=20
reflections, the characteristics of effective teaching, and the promise=20
of critical thinking.

Like a Foucauldian analysis, How Should I Know?=
does not promise total vision. Rather, it questions=20
taken-for-granted meanings, values, and interrelations. It assists us in
finding out where meanings and values are legitimated, as in Sylvia=E2=80=
=99s=20
view: =E2=80=9CIt=E2=80=99s that mystique of science and how I had always=
been taught=20
science: the teacher knows the answer=E2=80=9D (p. 51). The stories=20
demonstrate whose knowledge is privileged, and how those investments are
sustained. For example, problematizing the assumption that=20
potential knowers are equally distributed across the epistemic terrain,=20
Helen observes: =E2=80=9CThe guys in our school were like =E2=80=98oh, the=
girls can=E2=80=99t=20
do physics, the girls can=E2=80=99t do math=E2=80=99 (p. 129). Elsie tells=
us: =E2=80=9CI loved=20
our female math teacher but I always felt like she was teaching to the=20
male students in the class. Her favorites were always the males=E2=80=9D (p=
.=20
129). Knowledge production, in these stories, works unevenly across=20
gendered lines, generating presumptions of whose knowledge will be=20
dismissed, discounted and disbelieved. Roberta explains: =E2=80=9CWe=E2=80=
=99re taught=20
to use our experience as knowledge and yet it=E2=80=99s disqualified if it=
=20
doesn=E2=80=99t fit in=E2=80=9D (p. 52).

In Foucault=E2=80=99s terms, dividing practices are=
=20
tremendously powerful. Places of knowing do not operate on a level
playing field, as Helen notes: =E2=80=9CI didn=E2=80=99t understand anythi=
ng in grade=20
ten [math]. I thought =E2=80=98Oh, I=E2=80=99m just bad at math=E2=80=99,=
and then I gave up=E2=80=9D=20
(p. 123). Who might count as a knower is always already partially=20
scripted and contained within hierarchies of power that work to endorse a
female preservice teacher=E2=80=99s epistemic status. As Evelyn observes:=
=20
=E2=80=9CThere is a lot of support for not doing good at science=E2=80=A6If=
I told=20
people I didn=E2=80=99t understand chemistry, they=E2=80=99d say: =E2=80=9C=
Yeah, well, you=20
know=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D (p. 162-163). Politics grounds the struggle ov=
er a=20
teacher=E2=80=99s sense of self as a knower. Crucially, preservice teachers=
come
to think of themselves in ways that have been shaped for them and begin
to act accordingly.

Similarly, what it means to know mathematics and=20
science is generated within specific spaces that induce teachers into a=20
particular pedagogical pattern. Ursula tells us: =E2=80=9C[I]t was an X or=
a=20
check mark there was no discussion it was just a right or a wrong thing=E2=
=80=9D
(p. 51). Later Ursula notes: =E2=80=9CThey gave you a handout; you memoriz=
ed it
quick the night before and you go spit that out and forget it the next=20
day=E2=80=9D (p. 76). Evelyn tells us that in her class: =E2=80=9CWe labell=
ed diagrams=20
that were photocopied out of the textbooks=E2=80=9D (p. 74). In Helen=E2=80=
=99s=20
experience as a student, links between knowledge and power worked to=20
produce uneven possibilities of being a knower in mathematics and=20
science. She noted: =E2=80=9CHe=E2=80=99d come to class, He=E2=80=99d=
write something on=20
the board that didn=E2=80=99t make any sense. He wouldn=E2=80=99t explain=
it. He=20
wouldn=E2=80=99t answer questions. Then he=E2=80=99d leave the class=E2=80=
=A6=E2=80=9D (p. 123).=20
Experiences like these in which positions of authority and expertise are
differentially located, influence the kinds of teachers the preservice=20
teachers might become.

Concluding Thoughts

How Should I Know? is directed towards=20
understanding and potentially eradicating the injustices that determine=20
"outsider" status within science and mathematics. It offers=
an=20
analysis that is much richer than mere description. By exposing=20
the conditions which operate to make divisions between people, the book=20
reveals that the effects of power are experienced not only by those=20
marginalized by social class, ethnicity and so forth, but for these=20
female preservice teachers in their everyday school practices. By=20
unpacking what seems "natural" and by locating the effects of=20
constitutive power, How Should I Know? prompts us into thinking
differently about women in science and mathematics. The stories=20
offered do not support a na=C3=AFve experientialism, but rather sketch out=
=20
how systemic constraints become lived as individual dilemmas.

Importantly, the analyses point to the=20
transformative potential of gendered epistemologies. They provide a=20
means to explore the possibilities that emerge for elementary preservice
teachers, with a view towards more tangible results and more equitable=20
forms of organization. Raising questions about differential power and=20
privilege and paying close attention to the way in which both human=20
practices and systems shape the knowledge of those learning to teach,=20
might be a valuable first step.

References

Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a goo=
d thing to think with: Teaching research in education as a wild profusion.=
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1),=
35-57.